Commissioner of Income Tax- 8 Versus Sardar Exhibitors Pvt Ltd

2015 (7) TMI 742 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The only ground urged before this Court by Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue is that the Assessee had deliberately claimed revenue receipt as capital receipt. Since tha .....

e appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 10th November 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') dismissing the Revenue's appeals ITA Nos. 5432, 5433, 5434, 5435, 5436, 5437, 5438 and 5485/DEL/2 .....

espondent Assessee to the Ministry of Defence ('MoD') by a lease deed dated 16th September 1985 for a period of three years. The agreed 'compensation' was ₹ 1,75,192 per month. With the MoD not vacating the premises upon expiry .....

the Assessee received a payment of ₹ 4,91,98,124 for rent and interest on arrears of rent minus the tax deducted at source ('TDS') which worked out to ₹ 10,04,043. 5. In the assessment proceedings for the aforementioned AYs, one .....

was a revenue receipt and had to be assessed on accrual basis on year to year and not in any particular year or years. 6. The order of the ITAT impugned in the present appeals arose from the consequential penalty proceedings. The question that arose .....

d the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 7. The Assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. In the separate orders allowing each of the Assessee's appeals, the CIT .....

se did not fall within the purview of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 8. The appeals filed by the Revenue against the aforementioned orders of the CIT (A) were dismissed by the impugned common order of the ITAT wherein the ITAT concurred with the CIT .....